OK I promised computers, so let’s move to the Tek 4051 I got! Released in 1975, this was based on the 4010 series of terminals, but with a Motorola 6800 computer inside. This machine ran, like so many at the time, BASIC, but with extra subroutines for drawing and manipulating vector graphics. 8KB RAM was standard, but up to 32KB RAM could be installed. Extra software was installed via ROM modules in the back, for example to add DSP routines. Data could be saved on tape, and via RS232 and GBIP external devices could be attached!
All in all, a pretty capable machine, especially in 1975. BASIC computers where getting common, but graphics was pretty new. According to Tektronix the 4051 was ideal for researches, analysts and physicians, and this could be yours for the low low price of 6 grand, or around $36.000 in 2025. I could not find sales figures, but it seems that this was a decently successful machine. Tektronix also made the 4052, with a faster CPU, and the 4054, a 19″ 4K resolution behemoth! Tektronix continued making workstations until the 90s but like almost all workstations of the era, x86/Linux eventually took over the entire workstation market.
↫ Rik te Winkel at Just another electronics blog
Now that’s a retro computer you don’t see very often.
the real news here is that these are the computers in the original Battlestar Galactica Series
https://www.starringthecomputer.com/computer.html?c=298
My university had a Tektronix terminal in the corner of the main terminal room. it was green monochrome and supported
line drawing. Students would occasionally play around and make some squiggles but no one used it much.
The real news here, at least for me, is that there existed terminals with a resolution 4096*3120 pixels in the 70′. That’s more than my own great 4k display in 2025 ! (3840×2160). Granted theirs is only monochrome, but still i’m very impressed. How could they do that ? There can’t even be a framebuffer, that would require 1.5MB !
orzel,
I am not familiar with this specific hardware. However “vector graphics” CRT does not use raster graphics in the way we are familiar with and instead works more like a laser show projector does. This means the laser/CRT scans a beam continuously from one point to another to draw full segments instead of using rasterized “pixels” as the underlying primitive.
Two 12bit DACs can produce a resolution of 4096×4096 (a common configuration with laser projectors to this day). So you can digitally walk the beam across the surface to achieve 4096×4096 resolution using nothing more than two 12 bit DACs and the image is comprised of list of (X,Y,color) points. Color could be RGB levels or just a monochrome on/off bit.
Old arcade machines used vector graphics (think old school asteroids).
https://morethanshooting.wordpress.com/2025/07/08/asteroids-the-success-of-vector-graphics/
These handled bitmap graphics poorly, but given the lousy resolution for bitmap graphics especially back then would have made vector graphics look amazing by comparison – at least with media that lends itself to line & curve based vector graphics. With laser projectors, the physical speed of galvo’s is typically the limiting factor: 20k points per second, 30k if you push them hard (when I push mine too far with wide amplitude the transistors actually short out the power supply). 50k if you pay a fortune. I don’t know how many points per second was typical on vector CRTs, obviously they used magnetic fields instead of mirrors to steer the electron beam.
Alfman,
I could not find a 4K x 4K monitor, however a 1024 x 1024 one from 60+ years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_2250
Crystal clear vector graphics, massive size, which can be multiplied to 4 (4 screens with single controller. is this where 4K x 4K comes from).
The only downside… in addition to being unable to display rasterized graphics?
About $2 million in today’s dollars.
Thanks, but I’m pretty happy with my 65″ cheap OLED.
sukru,
Interesting. However it seems like the what distinguished the Tektronix machine is that they used a “storage CRT” that “remembers” drawn signals somehow. I’ve never heard of storage CRT before, but as described it sounds like the computer could take it’s time rendering output that didn’t need to be constantly refreshed each frame. This would have made it far easier & cheaper for Tektronix to achieve higher resolutions.
Not to mention another notorious problem with old CRT monitors (your link with my emphasis):
I used to get terrible migraines even at 60HZ. Since CRT pixels tended to respond much faster than pixels on an LCD display, to get the same average light output a CRT’s emission needs to be concentrated in a shorter window with brighter pulses that cause eye strain for some of us. I found a scan rate of 75HZ made a big difference.
Anyway this trait apparently made the Tektronix computer desirable in Hollywood movies.
Things sure did get a lot cheaper. Although quality-wise things seem to have dropped down from plasma displays that simply had outstanding contrast. This year we bought our first new TV in two decades and it had such terrible ghosting that we immediately returned it. It would have been ok with bright sports, but in a movie with dark scenes it was just awful! I was surprised that in this day and age quality still isn’t a given.
Alfman,
Hmm… I skipped that part, but yes, that is valuable. Headache is a real thing.
True. But it is much better now.
Everything since Plasma was a step down until good OLEDs came to market.
The LCD and later LED monitors were freaks of nature. Terrible refresh rates. Fluorescent lighting with flickers (LED made it slightly better), terrible contrast ratio. Muted colors. Very narrow color space (much less than even the NTSC). I’m not sure how we survived that era.
But OLED is back to norm. Proper color space DCI-P3 or Rec.2020, which match and even surpass Plasma (finally), excellent contrast ratio (perfect blacks with individual pixel dimming, just like Plasma), and with dual rendering (don’t remember the technical term, but they render the frame, and then a black one)… no more ghosting in practice. Especially at 240 hz refresh (120 in practice)
Most importantly, finally a proper “monitor drop in” 4:4:4 pixel rendering (much cheaper panels than monitors for some reason).
I got an LG C1 when C2 was in market. They had some sort of fire sale, and if I recall correctly almost half off. I don’t know whether they still do it, but check the pricing around CES time when new devices arrive.
Those “storage tube” vector display systems did not use a frame buffer. Or at least they did not require one.
The hint is in the name “storage tube” as the display used a persistent type of special phosphor that retained the image (as a momentary burn in of sorts) and thus it did not required image memory for the display system.
Technically those systems were not raster-based display generators. So they did not have the concept of “pixels”
They were more like a etch-a-sketch or laser calligraphic show .
It was basically a glorified oscilloscope (which given Tektronix pedigree, makes sense). You basically feed it the raw math function, and the system would translate it into the voltage and frequency for an analog RC circuit, and the resulting wave would be displayed just like the voltage on an oscilloscope. You could overlap several different functions, in order to get complex shapes, and time series to even simulate motion.
It was a neat trick, but not very scalable past generic/simple geometric shapes. So you couldn’t do much in terms of the modern graphics techniques we take for granted today.
Xanady Asem,
While your other points agree with the article, this point does not. Look at the screen shots, the graphics are definitely not generic/simple geometric shapes – at least not any more so than monochrome pixels would be. And it even even looks great for hardware from that era.
Still photos don’t really do it justice though, here’s a video demonstrating the capabilities quite well.
“My vector graphics MONOPOLY game in BASIC for Tektronix 4050 computers”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5_ZQk2B9K4
I don’t know how exactly it works, but the storage display has the ability to draw persistent lines as well as non-persistent lines (for things like blinking a cursor). And somehow they have the ability to reset the entire screen. It would be weak for animation, but the technique seems like a legitimate way to obtain superior graphics even on hardware that doesn’t have enough memory for a frame-buffer. It reminds me of e-ink in terms of UI capabilities.